On 01/15/2013 07:15 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > [adding the Austin Group] >
>
> What do others on the Austin Group think about an empty string for path1
> in symlink()? Current Linux rejects the symlink() call with ENOENT;
> FreeBSD 8.2 allows it but refuses to resolve the symlink ("ln -s '' a &&
> ls a/" reports ENOENT); Solaris 10 allows it and resolves the symlink as
> though it were '.' ("ln -s '' a && ls a/" reports the current directory
> contents).
In today's Austin Group meeting, I was tasked to open a new bug that
would state specifically how the empty symlink is resolved; the intent
is to allow both Solaris behavior (current directory) and BSD behavior
(ENOENT). Meanwhile, everyone was in agreement that the Linux kernel
has a bug for rejecting the creation of an empty symlink, but once that
bug is fixed, then Linux can choose either Solaris or BSD behavior for
how to resolve such a symlink.
It will probably be a bug report similar to this one, which regarded how
to handle a symlink containing just slashes:
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=541
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
